Re: [rfc] [patch] consolidate/clean up spinlock.h files

[Roman Zippel]

Hi,

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> yes, that's what i'm working towards - separating type from 
> implementation on the arch level was the first step needed. I already 
> had it at such a state yesterday (complete separation of type 
> definitions, API definitions and asm implementation - it needed the 
> initializers in the asm/spinlock_types.h file, but otherwise it was 
> straightforward), but undid it in the last minute because sched.c and 
> kernel_lock.c used some intermediate/raw primitives, leading to ugly 
> dependencies. I'll re-try this angle today and repost the patch.

Some time ago I posted these patches: http://www.xs4all.nl/~zippel/task_patches/
They basically only move the type definitions into separate header files, 
but would basically allow a much better cleanup of e.g. the spinlock 
header file. Right now it's an ifdef jungle with lots of duplicated code.
In the end I'd like to see a single set of spinlock functions, which are 
either inlined or instantiated in kernel/spinlock.c. But for the macros to 
become inline functions, we need to cleanup the header dependencies, so 
that we get: spinlock implementation -> preempt/irq implementation -> 
task/thread definitions -> spinlock definitions.
In this context I'm a little concerned whether your up/smp separation 
really works out. A proper cleanup needs changes outside the spinlock 
code and not just splitting the existing header into smaller headers.

bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/